ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Calibration of Priors for Bayesian Model-Based Dose-Finding Trial Designs With Joint Outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of dose-finding oncology trials is to assess the safety of anti-cancer treatments across multiple doses and to recommend dose(s) for subsequent trials. As patients' outcomes accrue, trialists dynamically recommend new doses for further investigation during the trial. This adaptive decision-making lends itself to Bayesian learning, with Bayesian frameworks increasingly guiding dose recommendations in model-based dose-finding designs, including the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). However, such approaches introduce increased complexity, not least when additional outcomes are incorporated within designs. Such trial designs require careful prior selection. Directly applying prior calibration methods developed for single outcome model-based trial designs to joint outcome trial designs may introduce unintended bias in dose recommendations, potentially limiting dose exploration and failing to accurately reflect trialists' a priori beliefs. We extend methodology to analytically calibrate priors for model-based joint outcome trial designs with divergence minimisation. Our method offers an analytical and computationally efficient technique. We demonstrate the flexibility of our calibration method relative to existing approaches in ensemble simulation scenarios, and show that calibrating priors in this way delivers improved accuracy and computational efficiency compared with traditional grid search methods. As Bayesian dose-finding trial designs continue to advance, research and guidance on the effective calibration of design parameters is essential to support uptake and ensure optimal performance in practice. This method provides an analytical and intuitive approach to prior calibration, highlighting the importance of rigorous prior calibration in improving model accuracy and dose selection for safer, more effective oncology treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.